Hansard

::I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a partner in a farming business and a member of NFU Scotland, SLE and the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland.

I start on a positive note. Despite differences over the content of the bill, the aspirations to protect and enhance Scotland’s natural environment are shared around the chamber. Scotland has, by some metrics, suffered some significant nature depletion, and we are slowly coming to terms with that legacy. At various stages of the bill, members have spoken about the impact of changes to the environment within their lifetimes, including in their personal experiences. We can point to the fact that there has been a 15 per cent decline in average species abundance since the mid-1990s, but it is direct experience that often gives this issue its urgency.

It is welcome that we have reached a time of broad acceptance of the human role as custodian of our environment and of an appreciation of what we can do to reverse some of the losses. The need for nature restoration and positive stewardship is, however, something that many farmers, crofters and land managers have recognised for many years, long before a Government strategy was put in place. Private initiatives have often led the way in improving biodiversity. Where flexibility is available and innovation allowed, outcomes are often better.

Despite the shared aspirations, we have ended up with almost 200 amendments at stage 3 and plenty of points of contention. Stage 2 was far from straightforward and I commend the work of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on that. Part 1 of the bill was improved considerably at stage 2 by a spirit of holding the Scottish Government to account on targets and a recognition that ministers have—to be charitable—struggled with such targets in the past. We now have a range of provisions in the bill providing for the setting of targets in more detail and, just as importantly, for reporting and reviewing progress against them.

At stage 1, I pointed out that action to promote biodiversity and meet the targets that will be required by the bill must be a twin test of effectiveness and sustainability. These amendments move us closer to a position that can be achieved. Part 2 of the bill has been removed, while part 3 has received a number of purposeful amendments, including those of my colleague Tim Eagle, to require national parks policy statements to be made on a 10-year basis, clarifying the purpose and approach to the park authorities.

Part 4 could fill a lengthy speech in itself, and I recognise the extensive work that my colleague Edward Mountain has done with the deer management elements of the bill in the hope of improving the Scottish Government’s approach.

I have pushed my own proposals around goose management. My native Orkney, for example, has no deer but it has suffered considerable ecological damage from visiting geese populations. We must recognise the shared principles of population management and, while taking species-specific approaches, acknowledge that there can be similar challenges across species and in different parts of the country. That is a short way of saying that a one-size-fits-all approach to Scotland’s natural environment will not work, nor will an approach that simply prioritises rewilding at the expense of our rural economy.

Rural Scotland is a daily workplace for hundreds of thousands of people. It provides the food that we eat, as well as being home to thousands of businesses that support our communities. It is nothing new to say that a balance must be struck between competing interests in the countryside. When the bill addresses detail and often leaves those questions for the future, it too often seems to get that balance wrong.

For example, my amendment on ecological focus areas and their application in the islands sought to recognise the distinct position and challenges of farming on Scotland’s island communities. The balance is different there from farms in the central belt—the margins are lower and greening more difficult to achieve. As an islander, I know all too well the problems that ill-considered legislation can cause in places when Edinburgh is so distant. This legislative process has been a chance for the Scottish Government to recognise Scotland’s diversity and acknowledge that there is not one natural environment but many, but too often it has failed to do so.

This bill is one best framed in terms of missed opportunities from the bill’s introduction to today’s proceedings. There has been as much commentary on what the bill has not done as what it will do. That is disappointing and, once again, rural Scotland is left looking for more answers than the Scottish Government is willing to provide. The bill was a long time in the making and subject to extensive pre-legislative consultation. We might therefore have expected a package of measures that was a little more complete, but this is the bill that we have. It is better for having gone through the parliamentary process, but few will be satisfied with the outcome.

17:58